Rizal Surety vs.

CA
FACTS:
Rizal Surety & Insurance Company issued a fire insurance policy in favor of
Transworld Knitting Mills, Inc. The subject policy stated that Rizal Surety is
responsible in case of loss whilst contained and/or stored during the currency of
this Policy in the premises occupied by them forming part of the buildings situated
within own Compound xxx. The policy also described therein the four-span building
covered by the same. On Jan. 12, 1981, fire broke out in the compound, razing the
middle portion of its four-span building and partly gutting the left and right sections
thereof. A two-storey building (behind said four-span building) was also destroyed
by the fire.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Rizal Surety is liable for loss of the two-storey building considering
that the fire insurance policy sued upon covered only the contents of the four-span
building
HELD:
Both the trial court and the CA found that the so-called annex as not an annex
building but an integral and inseparable part of the four-span building described in
the policy and consequently, the machines and spare parts stored therein were
covered by the fire insurance in dispute.
So also, considering that the two-storey building aforementioned was already
existing when subject fire insurance policy contract was entered into on Jan. 12,
1981, having been constructed some time in 1978, petitioner should have
specifically excluded the said two-storey building from the coverage of the fire
insurance if minded to exclude the same but if did not, and instead, went on to
provide that such fire insurance policy covers the products, raw materials and
supplies stored within the premises of Transworld which was an integral part of the
four-span building occupied by Transworld, knowing fully well the existence of such
building adjoining and intercommunicating with the right section of the four-span
building.
Also, in case of doubt in the stipulation as to the coverage of the fire insurance
policy, under Art. 1377 of the New Civil Code, the doubt should be resolved against
the Rizal Surety, whose layer or managers drafted the fire insurance policy contract
under scrutiny.
In Landicho vs. Government Service Insurance System, the Court ruled that the
terms in an insurance policy, which are ambiguous, equivocal or uncertain x x x are
to be construed strictly and most strongly against the insurer, and liberally in favor

of the insured so as to effect the dominant purpose of indemnity or payment to the

insured, especially where forfeiture is involved, and the reason for this is that the
insured usually has no voice in the selection or arrangement of the words employed
and that the language of the contract is selected with great care and deliberation by
experts and legal advisers employed by, and acting exclusively in the interest of,
the insurance company.